Thank you. So they are not related but really two separate elements. I read somewhere on the Board that a Flying Camel should have 1.5 air rotations before landing into the spin. most of the time I just see a butterfly into the spin.

Thank you. So they are not related but really two separate elements. I read somewhere on the Board that a Flying Camel should have 1.5 air rotations before landing into the spin. most of the time I just see a butterfly into the spin.

Just jumping in Joe because I think you might have been referring to a conversation we once had about the flying sit spin where I once said that the flying sit spin should have 1.5 rotations in the air before landing in the spin (a bit like Robin Cousin's tuck axel but landing in the spin). I think i was corrected that it wasn't an actual requirement of the flying sit to have the axel rotation but i think a lot of the "oldies" back in the day did it (and Petkevich a student of Lussi i'm sure states in his book that the flying sit needs that rotation, but then he also thinks the toe, sal and loop are half rotation jumps!).

Just jumping in Joe because I think you might have been referring to a conversation we once had about the flying sit spin where I once said that the flying sit spin should have 1.5 rotations in the air before landing in the spin (a bit like Robin Cousin's tuck axel but landing in the spin). I think i was corrected that it wasn't an actual requirement of the flying sit to have the axel rotation but i think a lot of the "oldies" back in the day did it (and Petkevich a student of Lussi i'm sure states in his book that the flying sit needs that rotation, but then he also thinks the toe, sal and loop are half rotation jumps!). Ant

Yes, that was it. It would be very difficult to position the Butterfly for 1.5 turns into a spin, but a simple axel-like jump could do it. I like both approaches. the simple jump to spin should be very high. The Butterfly to spin with an arched back should be distinguished between the acrobatic and the spin.

There have been many good posts in this thread, and as a whole tend to point to why I think the stringency in marking UR jumps needs to go. Here's the plain and simple truth: toe-loop jumps leave the ice facing forwards, as do almost all jumps except the axel, which really leaves the ice at some point in between. The problem is, if a toe loop inherently takes off going forward, whether executed perfectly or poorly, how do we distinguish when it is correct and when it is an error? (Since I've pointed out that most jumps actually leave the ice facing forward, it is important to note that a toe-axel may include more than exactly 1/2 rotation on the ice before takeoff, but probably not much). All triple toe-loops rotate at most 2 1/2 turns in the air, so it's not really an issue of completing the rotations. But I see this as translating into questions of clean landings as well. Few skaters land jumps purely backwards, because physically, in order to check the rotation on the landing, it becomes necessary to use some friction between the blade and ice at the end of the rotations. I know I am not the first one to complain about the seeming unfairness of UR calls in the past seasons, but I think my argument is exactly the opposite of what tends to be the norm. In my opinion it is not a black or white issue. It is subjective, and I know I can't explain why, but there are times in which a skater's blade is in contact with the ice for more than 1/4 of the last rotation that the jump should be considered clean, and others when it shouldn't. It has so much to do with overall technique of the jump than simply whether the blade hits the ice a few degrees too soon.

As an example I present Miki Ando's Grand Prix Final LP from this season, in which the double axel-triple toe was downgraded on the second jump. I simply don't care about the slow motion footage, the jump I saw in the program was a clean one with good technique.

I also wanted to mention that the last I knew, the USFSA rule book that is published and updated yearly has descriptions of all the jumps as well as drawings of what the tracings should roughly look like on the ice, describing the edges and toe placements as applicable. I believe that is where I read the description of flutzes being judged based on whether the true edge was actually attempted or not.

I also think it's odd that flying camels have come up in this discussion where we've also been talking about Salchows. And it makes me think more about the subjectivity or objectivity of deductions in the new system. A common error on the flying camel is known as something like a flying Salchow, in which the skater takes off of a back inside edge. A flying camel, regardless of rotations in the air must take off from a forward edge, the takeoff hitting the toe-pick and looking like a very curled axel takeoff. Ideally, the skater will then land on the other side, the outside of that first edge, where she will then center the spin. In the flying Salchow, the skater rotates too much on the ice almost performing a three turn before taking off. This is a mistake, and I want to know whether there is a distinct deduction if a skater performs this element or if it simply comes off the GOE. Why do certain errors call for a specific deduction and others not?

Last edited by jeff goldblum; 07-22-2009 at 01:46 PM.
Reason: spelling and grammar

Yes, that was it. It would be very difficult to position the Butterfly for 1.5 turns into a spin, but a simple axel-like jump could do it. I like both approaches. the simple jump to spin should be very high. The Butterfly to spin with an arched back should be distinguished between the acrobatic and the spin.

Ant is referencing a reverse Axel-sit spin with his 1.5 rotations in tuck position versus a flying camel which jumps around itself, a flying forward sit (which jumps up in a tuck position and lands on the take off foot and spins) and a flying reverse sit (aka death drop) which jumps sort of like a fly camel and then collapses into a back sit position. There is also the jump camel (which I defined earlier with the easiest being a forward camel jumping to a back camel. I saw a beautiful one last year at a local competition where the skater jumped from a back sit to a FORWARD camel - YIKES!) and the jump sit (which is typically from back spin to front sit or front spin to back sit in the middle of a combination spin - easiest typically being back camel position to front sit).

Typically a skater learns the flying camel first usually around the same time as a back camel. If a skater struggles with the flying camel, a coach may teach camel-jump-camel. Then a skater typically learns the death drop and/or flying (forward) sit spin.

...I know I can't explain why, but there are times in which a skater's blade is in contact with the ice for more than 1/4 of the last rotation that the jump should be considered clean, and others when it isn't. It has so much to do with overall technique of the jump then simply whether the blade hits the ice a few degrees too soon....

That is just the way I feel about it, but as a non-skater I was afraid to say so. I do not think the CoP has succeeded in its goal of matching up points with the quality of the skating.

^^^
Thank you Jeff G for the informative post. Can a fan order of copy of the USFS's Rule Book?

I'm trying to visualize a Flying Salchow into a spin. I can see a 3 turn into the normal salchow, but can't quite get the Flying part.

Your take on Miki's combo is noteworthy. What the caller sees in his monitor is not shared with public or skater, and he is the rule of law. We have to live with that.

I have no problems with the general deductions of the general skating, but I wonder about the major errors in jumping, i.e., Fall, URs, WETs.

The Fall disrupts a program and I feel there should be a heavy penalty;
An Underrotation does not necessarily disrupt the program and the penalty is too severe.
The Wrong Edge Takeoff cancels out the jumps and also shows sloppy technique and should be considered a no-jump or a very severe penalty.

IMO, those three errors need a renewed look at what their penalties should be.
also the word attempt needs clarification.

The list of jumps (p. 36 of the "Tests Book w/o Diagrams" document) does not include the little diagrams of takeoffs and landing edges that jeff goldblum referred to, so I wouldn't count on them being in the printed version either. You might need to get an earlier year's rulebook to see them.

I'm trying to visualize a Flying Salchow into a spin. I can see a 3 turn into the normal salchow, but can't quite get the Flying part.

It will look more like a regular flying camel than like a regular salchow jump, except the blade will turn on the ice before the skater is completely airborne, and the flight will probably be weaker than the average flying camel.

Melissa did not disrupt her program with that attempt. If skaters can fall on their attempted quads and get partial credit, why drag the skaters with a UR to a whole level below?

It's not easy to see the underrotation on the video, I agree. It was more obvious live.

I can see an argument that a jump shouldn't be downgraded to the lower base value if it's short by just over 90 degrees -- maybe the cutoff should be 135 or even 180 degrees.

A skater gets

-partial credit for a jump that's rotated with a fall (base value of the attempted jump, minus -3 GOE and 1.00 fall deduction) -- if the fall is disruptive, it will also have a negative effect on some of the PCS

-partial credit for a jump that's underrotated without a fall (base value of the jump of the same takeoff with one fewer rotations, probably with negative GOE) -- this may add up to more or less than the point value of the rotated jump with the fall depending on the difference in the specific base values of the jumps, and if the error is not disruptive it should have no effect on the PCS -- for an exciting attempt like a lady's triple axel it might have a positive effect

As of this year, the judges are no longer informed whether a jump is downgraded. They are no longer required to reduce the GOE for a downgraded jump if they don't see the underrotation, and they're no longer required to give a final negative GOE even if they do see it but also see other positive aspects of the jump that would compensate.

So the skater would lose points for the base value but they'll only get the double penalty of also earning negative GOE if most judges see the underrotation in real time and there aren't multiple other strengths of the element to hold the GOE up at 0 or on the positive side.

It will look more like a regular flying camel than like a regular salchow jump, except the blade will turn on the ice before the skater is completely airborne, and the flight will probably be weaker than the average flying camel.

In skater vernacular in our area, it's referred to as a "step over" and is an incorrect entry into the fly camel.

I think Joe makes an interesting point about pre-rotation on the take-off versus short rotation on the landing. Those few hearty souls (ladies) who attenpt a triple-triple combination with a triple loop as the second jump are hit with a "<" pretty close to 100% of the time.

Is it pre-rotation by three-quarters of a rotation, or is the landing short by 135 degrees or so?

Most skaters find the toe loop the easiest jump, with the Salchow right behind. The CoP agrees. The triple toe is the lowest valued triple (4.0) , with the Salchow next (4.5). The Zayak rule was put in place because Elaine Zayak could do triple toes all night long.

But in figure skating history, it seems that the edge jumps came first, and it took longer to master the toe jumps, even the toe loop.

First double jump by a woman: Cecelia College, 1936 (Salchow) (I think Gillis Grafstrom might have been the first man to do a double Sal, in 1920.)

How did it happen that Dick Button could do a jump that is still pretty hard for today's skaters, a triple loop, more than a decade before anyone could do a triple toe?

Quads were the other way around. Kurt Browning was credited with the first quad toe in 1988, and others landed them with only the slighest of two-foot landings at about the same time. In wasn't until a decade later, 1998, that Tim Goebel landed the first quad Salchow.

You for got to mention the first triple Lutz was achieved by Donald Jackson in 1962 at the Worlds in Prauge. A much more difficult jump than a loop.